By
Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, nor does it undermine her autonomy or right to privacy. This observation came as the court dismissed a petition filed by a husband challenging the charge sheet against him for allegedly sharing an intimate video of his wife without her consent.
Justice Vinod Diwakar, in his judgment, emphasized that a wife is not merely an extension of her husband but an individual with her own rights, desires, and agency. He stated that respecting a wife’s bodily autonomy and privacy is not just a legal obligation but also a moral imperative essential for fostering equality within the marital relationship.
The case involved allegations that the husband had secretly recorded intimate acts without the wife’s knowledge or consent, subsequently uploading the video to Facebook and sharing it with her cousin. The husband’s petition argued that the FIR had been lodged with undue delay and that discrepancies existed between the FIR and the wife’s statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He further contended that no evidence was provided to prove he created or uploaded the video and that, as the complainant’s husband, he could not be charged under Section 67B of the IT Act.
In its decision, the court dismissed the husband’s arguments, highlighting the gravity of his actions. “Marriage does not grant a husband ownership or control over his wife, nor does it dilute her autonomy or right to privacy. By uploading an intimate video on Facebook, the applicant has gravely breached the sanctity of the marital relationship,” observed Justice Diwakar.
The court also noted the historical context of the issue, referencing the outdated and regressive doctrine of coverture, which once subsumed a woman’s legal identity under her husband upon marriage. Justice Diwakar stressed that it is high time for men to abandon such patriarchal attitudes and recognize their spouses as equals.
This ruling underscores the court’s firm stance against violations of a woman’s privacy and dignity, even within the confines of marriage. It serves as a reminder that autonomy and consent remain fundamental rights, irrespective of marital status and that any breach of these rights will face serious legal consequences.
